If you directed a highly popular film, profits aside, would you make a sequel? Does the possibility of creating an equal or better film that boosts popularity for the whole series outweigh the risk of creating a flop that depreciates the original? Is that even a legitimate concern considering the films can be viewed separately?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the possibility of a lesser film devaluing it's predecessor is a notable concern, but if a poor sequel is created then it's influence depends on it's own promotion. There are horrible spin offs of popular films that were swept under the rug and didn't make a dent in the reputation of the original, such as The Star Wars Holiday Special which was feature length but only aired once on television and is regretted by George Lucas. However, today sequels are promoted even more than the original to make as much money as possible.
ReplyDeleteIt also depends on the seriousness of the series in the first place. I can still enjoy Dumb and Dumber even though I didn't enjoy Dumb and Dumberer, but if Toy Story 3 is bad my childhood will have been destroyed, because I view the latter series as “good” and not just “entertaining.”
I think that it is not a bad idea to attempt to make a sequel if your intentions are well placed, assuming you care about the reputation. You need to have a clear plan and not just do it for the sake of making a sequel.
I think the use of a sequel depends on the first movie. The first movie has to end with a feeling of curiosity to draw the majority of the audience back to view the sequel. For example, Avatar was set up well because many people want to know what will happen next after the main character joined the natives. Also, because of its high popularity it will draw new and old audiences to see it. When deciding to make a sequel, the producers should consider the popularity of the first film and think if the majority of the audience will want to watch a sequel. Since Avatar was so popular, it will draw back the majority of the viewers and even if the sequel is not very good a large number of people will see it because they liked the first movie. So, therefore based on the success of the first movie, I would decide to make a sequel if I think the first movie was a big enough success. An example is the movie Speed, which was a great movie, but the sequel, Speed II was pretty bad. It probably drew a lot of viewers because of the success of the first movie so it was a good investment, but did not receive good reviews.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake. Sequels should only be made if people want to see more. Avatar is the obvious example. It's huge fan base will want a sequel. However, there is always the danger of the sequel to be horendous, which may cause the original to lose fans as well. Transfromers was a great movie. The second one was awful. Because of this, many fans of the first movie lost interest of the entire series because of it's awful sequel.
ReplyDeleteThis idea isn't limited to movies. It blends into the music industry as well. Many artists may be able to have an extremely successful debut. But their sophomore album might flop. Although this idea isn't exactly the same (if an artists makes a huge splash in the industry, most likely they will have a sophomore album), but it shares the same risk of the sequel of the original to be a flop. For example, Mariah Carey (Yes, I know. There isn't a better example) was a huge success in the 90s. She had 16 #1 hits in ten years. She seemed to be unstoppable. However, she ran into a huge wall with glitter (both the movie and the soundtrack). She lost her ground and lost a lot of fans. Becuase of this, many people believed her career was over which usually is the case (she did, however, make a comeback 4 years later). If a movie's sequel flopped, it is unlikely there will be another movie. It's risky to make a sequel for a movie. But in some cases, if you know you have enough devoted fans, the risk isn't as high.
I think that no matter what sequels are bad things. If you argue that the first movie doesn't completely answer every question in the movie then it doesn't call for a sequel but the first movie should have just been made so that all of the questions were answered. I honestly believe that every sequel has been way worse than the original and the entire purpose of a sequel is just to try to ride the wave of the first movie and make some extra money off a big hit. The directors that are considered the best in the business, like James Cameron, only makes one movie at a time, and don’t bother with sequels. Like there was no sequel for Titanic and there most likely won't be for Avatar. The only exception would be like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings but they are really completely different movies and not really sequels. I just think sequels always have too much to over come because the original movie must have been really good to have a sequel and it will never reach those expectations so they should just not do them and focus on making the first movie the best it can be.
ReplyDeleteIf I had created a wildly successful movie and was posed with the option to make a sequel, I would definitely have to consider a few factors. The main factor would be how the public reacted to the film. If they reacted poorly, it would obviously be wise to avoid creating a sequel, but if the movie got good reviews and received critical acclaim, I would, with no doubt, create a sequel. Also, I would have to see how the movie did in the box office. Some movies receive wonderful reviews and have good reputations, but they just can’t rake in the profits. Some movies can be the opposite though, getting terrible reviews but still be a box office hit. If my movie didn’t get good reviews but made a lot of money, I would not make a sequel, because I wouldn’t want to ruin my reputation as a filmmaker. Sequels are a great way to move the franchise forward, and, as I said before, if the public did indeed react well to the film, I would most likely create a sequel. A great example of this situation is District 9. Neill Blomkamp went out on a limb and created an extremely interesting movie unlike anything most people had seen before. It took the sci-fi genre to a whole new level. When asked if he was going to create a sequel to District 9, he stated that if there was enough interest and there was an overall positive reaction to the film, he would definitely consider making a District 10. Blomkamp has pretty much the same idea as me, and I really hope he does make a District 10. I know I would.
ReplyDeleteI feel that broadly speaking sequels can be divided into two categories:
ReplyDelete1.) Sequels set up by their predecessor
2.) Sequels not set up by their predecessor
Sequels set up by their predecessor are fine and I encourage them, because for the sake of curiosity I want to know what is going to happen. Imagine if a movie like Star Wars had no sequel, wouldn't you be curious as to the fact that the bad guys are still out there (I mean for G-d's sake Darth Vader is still alive and The Emperor...we don't even know who he is besides a hologram). There are flops too, like the Matrix Trilogy. BUT, come one, they had to make them, there had to be resolution because there was more to the story, Neo's journey was not over yet. Then there is also the Iron Man style where the movie has a clear cut ending and then some dude walks in and says hey you like The Hulk? or something like that. And as annoying as that is, it does get you revved up for the sequel.
Now the second type...movies not set up to have sequels should NOT have sequels. This is designed only so that companies can make more money...there is NO reason to make the sequel because it doesn't supplement the first movie. Examples you might ask... Caddyshack 2...I hate everyone who thought this was a good idea
Another, I love Speed (that Sandra Bullock Keanu Reeves thriller)...Speed 2...Keanu Reeves doesn't want back in, Dennis Hopper is gone. Yeah GREAT IDEA...NOTT